America Votes 2008

[Faustus]

I can't agree more with Ms. Cooper on this one (and the Bush administration too, BTW).

While I have great respect for President

[ASCLEPIADES]

And about Russian help with Iran

[Faustus]

And about Russian help with Iran

Edited August 21, 2008 by Faustus

[ASCLEPIADES]

Salve, F

[2] We have no concern here in the US about the state of Hawaii remaining a state. or the commonwealth territory of Puerto Rico, which by the way is entirely voluntary; PR has the option of either becoming a state or becoming independent, or remaining a commonwealth, and gets no pressure from the mainland US either way. They have citizenship, free entry, send delegates to the US House, pay no taxes and get welfare with no obligations. We get use of the Naval Firing Range at Vieques Island, PR which we are being denied use of (ho-hum). And Russia has never held back in stirring up trouble in Puerto Rico. Note both of these mentions are legally US "territory" in reality, not by rhetorical devices as used by the Russians.

I don't agree; as far as I know, PR doesn't want to be a "commonwealth territory" (whatever such nomenclature may mean) but a real state.

Georgia has been Russian far more time than PR has been US; the motivations of both of them for becoming independent or not are clearly mainly economic.

Just remember that Puerto Rican nationalists O Collazo and G Torresola attempted to assassinate Harry S. Truman (November 1, 1950).

And of course, PR acquisition by US in 1898 was hardly voluntary; it was just a cession from the defeated Spain.

Regarding Hawaii, there's actually a tiny "pro-independence movement". Of course, American states can't just unilaterally abandon the Union. Just ask Jefferson Davies.

Edited August 21, 2008 by ASCLEPIADES

[Ludovicus]

I hope we're not blaming the Russians for the current high cost of oil, as one of the more recent posts may seem to suggest. Let's remember that before the invasion of Iraq crude was going for $27.69 a barrel.

http://inflationdata.com/inflation/Inflati...rices_Table.asp

 

Do we need the Russians? I think we do, if we're to avoid the unipolar world that has so depleted US strength. Sharing power with other nations doesn't mean we condone everything they do. It does mean that we look to issues of shared interest and pursue them jointly. Bullying Russia, or for that matter any country, is counter productive.

 

The aggressive decisions to incorporate the old Soviet-bloc nations into NATO, to install missiles in Poland, and to arm Georgia with US weapons have antagonized Russia and to an extent are fueling Russian reactions.

Edited August 22, 2008 by Ludovicus

[Faustus]

Salve, F

[1] I don't agree; as far as I know, PR doesn't want to be a "commonwealth territory" (whatever such nomenclature may mean) but a real state.

 

[2] Regarding Hawaii, there's actually a tiny "pro-independence movement". Of course, American states can't just unilaterally abandon the Union. Just ask Jefferson Davies.

[1]"Commonwealth" is the status they now have and I have enumerated the benefits to them of that status. They have nothing standing in the way of their statehood but a vote of their own citizens, but there has long been an independence movement there standing in the way of that. The only thing I'm aware of that commonwealth status denies PR that statehood would give is two US senate seats and representation in the US house.

[2] Practically all states which are not land-locked (and some which aren't) have such movements. They are a healthy phenomenon, not an unhealthy one. A part of that "movement" is a statement of displeasure of the existing government and it's overarching powers. If a state were to follow the procedure outlined for a constitutional amendment, who really knows how it would turn out. The one in Hawaii is a little different, however, and is more of an elitist movement than a democratic one.

 

I hope we're not blaming the Russians for the current high cost of oil, as one of the more recent posts may seem to suggest. Let's remember that before the invasion of Iraq crude was going for $27.69 a barrel.

 

L. Your table notwithstanding, the price of oil in the markets today has everything to do with uncertainty and practically nothing to do with Iraq. The futures price of oil is bid up by uncertainty, and there is little today that is uncertain about Iraq.

Do we need the Russians? I think we do, if we're to avoid the unipolar world that has so depleted US power, soft and hard, at home and abroad. Sharing power with other nations doesn't mean we condone everything they do. It does mean that we look to issues of shared interest and pursue them jointly. Bullying Russia, or for that matter any country, is counter productive.

Your other comments above I agree with but...

 

The aggressive decisions to incorporate the old Soviet-bloc nations into NATO, to install missiles in Poland, and to arm Georgia with US weapons have antagonized Russia and to an extent are fueling Russian reactions.

These nations which joined or want to join NATO, desire to because they think it is in their best interest to do so, and should be entitled to. They don't feel safe without friends beyond their large Russian neighbor which has shown a tendency to overpower its neighbors. They want a chance to have a stable and free economy without being in the shadow of their old nemesis.

 

Consider the recent threats of Russia against Poland, an actual threat of nuclear annihilation. The "missile" shield offered by the US cannot be used aggressively and aims to knock out nuclear tipped missiles by a direct hit with an inertial blow. How much of that attitude displayed by Russia toward her former satellites would you understand if the situation was reversed and the US made threats against a recent ally like Canada for instance? Also how much of that threat by Russia aims to preserve the efficacy of Iran's move into the nuclear arena?

 

To bring this all back to the 2008 election process; do not think all this is lost on observant Americans, it is not.

Edited August 22, 2008 by Faustus

[Faustus]

Obama has made his choice for vp, and it is Joseph Biden, Senator from Delaware. Biden brings some needed weight to his candidacy, as well as what appears to be adulthood. Joe, though, once a stutterer as a boy, has a very loose tongue and so often goes fast and loose with some novel ideas. Joe Biden will be a rhetorical knife against McCain, but he does get carried away with his own cleverness, and goes off the deep end with it. He's an interesting politician, with international policy credentials to presumably match McCains.

(the R side likes to refer to the senator as "loose lips joe")

 

McCain will need a foil for Biden, or he will find himself responding directly to a vp candidate rather than the top of the ticket, which would relieve OBama to "rise above" the fray. My own personal choice for McCain is Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison of Texas. She is very good in a debate, always a lady, but never allows herself to be beaten down in a debate, nor does she exploit her gender. She knows among other things, Oil and the economy. Still Romney might be a better match against Biden. Hmmm...

[ASCLEPIADES]

Salve, F

Obama has made his choice for vp, and it is Joseph Biden, Senator from Delaware. Biden brings some needed weight to his candidacy, as well as what appears to be adulthood. Joe, though, once a stutterer as a boy, has a very loose tongue and so often goes fast and loose with some novel ideas. Joe Biden will be a rhetorical knife against McCain, but he does get carried away with his own cleverness, and goes off the deep end with it. He's an interesting politician, with international policy credentials to presumably match McCains.

(the R side likes to refer to the senator as "loose lips joe")

 

McCain will need a foil for Biden, or he will find himself responding directly to a vp candidate rather than the top of the ticket, which would relieve OBama to "rise above" the fray. My own personal choice for McCain is Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison of Texas. She is very good in a debate, always a lady, but never allows herself to be beaten down in a debate, nor does she exploit her gender. She knows among other things, Oil and the economy. Still Romney might be a better match against Biden. Hmmm...

Gratiam habeo for such nice premiere.

I would consider it a rational selection; both senators' profiles seem complementary to each other.

For any reason, I always thought Senator Clinton was an unlikely choice.

 

My own personal choice for McCain is Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison of Texas. She is very good in a debate, always a lady, but never allows herself to be beaten down in a debate, nor does she exploit her gender. She knows among other things, Oil and the economy. Still Romney might be a better match against Biden. Hmmm...

Well, today is still a good time for wagers.

[Nephele]

(the R side likes to refer to the senator as "loose lips joe")

 

Hahahah! I'll say! This statement of Biden's from this article positively cracked me up:

[Faustus]

Well, today is still a good time for wagers.

Indeed it is!

I've always thought Biden was a sound bet for Obama, or even the top of the ticket; he is probably the "most complete" person in the US Senate, on the D. side. When he talks I listen; but hindsight is easy. (he also is inclined to put his foot in his mouth, which I look forward to). He has a stigma about plagiarism which derailed a presidential run back in 88 (and another time). He just doesn't seem to have enough words on his own so he borrows from others. It must be very frustrating for him.

 

Romney has a stigmata in that he is a Morman, but also has wavered on the abortion issue (was pro choice, then became "Right To Life". Hutchison is RTL but has said she would not vote to overturn Roe-V-Wade. She has her own stigmata in that she was indicted in 93: Shortly after her very close special election victory, Travis County authorities, led by Democratic district attorney Ronnie Earle, raided Hutchison's offices at the State Treasury looking for proof of allegations that Hutchison used state equipment and employees on state time to help with her campaign. She was indicted by a grand jury in September (Earle is known for saying he could get a Grand Jury to "indict a ham sandwich"...?) 1993 for official misconduct and records tampering. Following a ruling by the judge as to inadmissability of certain evidence Earle declined to proceed with his case. Though he had intended to continue the case later, judge Onion declined to give Earle that opportunity. The judge instead swore in a jury and immediately ordered the panel to acquit Hutchison when no evidence had been presented to them by Earle. Indictments of republicans in Texas by Earle are commonplace. It seems to be a way of taking talented R.s out of the action so as to better hold onto D. power in that state.

 

If McCain goes for talent in debates his choices are Romney and Hutchison. I

[ASCLEPIADES]

Well, today is still a good time for wagers.

Indeed it is!

Good thing we didn't put any money on it, because it was really a surprise for me:

 

" John McCain's selection of Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin to be his vice presidential running mate is a stunning surprise almost certain to recalibrate the race heading into the fall election"

[Faustus]

Well, today is still a good time for wagers.

Indeed it is!

Good thing we didn't put any money on it, because it was really a surprise for me:

 

" John McCain's selection of Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin to be his vice presidential running mate is a stunning surprise almost certain to recalibrate the race heading into the fall election"

Right you are A.

 

I thought McCain needed either a past governor with economic expertise or a woman with energy expertise, both with the very best debating skills, and he needed to shore up his conservative base. He has gotten all but the economic component.

 

Of the male choices available I picked Romney because he filled the bill as governor and expertise on the economy. Still his selection would only make it a ticket of

Edited September 3, 2008 by Faustus

[Kosmo]

I think McCain's strong points were his experience and his seriousness compared with Obama, but with this hunter, beauty pageant, hockey grandma from the wilderness he shot himself in the leg. His conservative base would have voted for him anyway, so maybe he needed somebody with more centrist views to bring the undecided and the dissatisfied HRC supporters. Palin with her radical conservative views would help draw a clear line between Dem's and Rep's

[Nephele]

I think that any Vice Presidential running mate who justifies the war in Iraq as being "a task from God" (as Sarah Palin has done) is a pretty damn scary whackadoo piece of work.

 

Additionally, Palin's urging of students to pray for the building of a $30 billion natural gas pipeline in Alaska, because it is "God's will," is disturbing, too.

 

This is not somebody I'd feel comfortable with running our nation, should the elderly McCain get elected and die before the end of his term.

 

To quote a 19th century U.S. civil rights leader:

 

"I distrust those people who know so well what God wants them to do...because it always coincides with their own desires." -- Susan B. Anthony

 

-- Nephele

[Faustus]

I think McCain's strong points were his experience and his seriousness compared with Obama, but with this hunter, beauty pageant, hockey grandma from the wilderness he shot himself in the leg.

You underestimate the largest minority in the US: The Scott/Irish.

 

His conservative base would have voted for him anyway, so maybe he needed somebody with more centrist views to bring the undecided and the dissatisfied HRC supporters.

This will bring enthusiasm to the base, which didn't exist before the vp pick. HRC supporters are not so much being sought as women voters. I predict they will flock to her. An unscientific personal poll already shows that.

 

Palin with her radical conservative views would help draw a clear line between Dem's and Rep's

That should be a wash or allows the electorate to better define itself. There are 12 pct undecided voters looking for definition. A larger part of them consider themselves conservative than liberal.

 

I think that any Vice Presidential running mate who justifies the war in Iraq as being "a task from God" (as Sarah Palin has done) is a pretty damn scary whackadoo piece of work.

 

Additionally, Palin's urging of students to pray for the building of a $30 billion natural gas pipeline in Alaska, because it is "God's will," is disturbing, too.

These oddball statements by her are her biggest unmentioned(?) problem up to now. She will have to explain those publicly stated comments, which at this moment I believe are confined to her church, just like Obama finally had to do with "God Damn America!" These two situations draw a useful contrast. The longer in the process her statements are scattered about on Utube and Forums like this the greater chance they will turn up in a final hour TV campaign add; better for her that they be addressed as soon as possible.